HomeScience EXPERT REVIEWER REVEALS HOW ALL FIVE IPCC ASSESSMENT REPORTS HAVE BEEN MANIPULATED

EXPERT REVIEWER REVEALS HOW ALL FIVE IPCC ASSESSMENT REPORTS HAVE BEEN MANIPULATED

Posted 14 October 2013

Dr Vincent Gray, the New Zealand scientist who has been an expert reviewer of every IPCC Assessment Report so far summarises the repeated fudges in their preparation. He writes: "Attempts of the IPCC to impose rigid discipline on a large group of scientists to persuade them to claim that human emissions of so-called greenhouse gases harm the climate, without being able to supply convincing evidence, has been a failure. Even their opinions on the supposed reliability of their 'projections' always leave an increasingly small escape route for the day when their approach is proved wrong."

The Environmental Movement is an anti-science pseudo religion which
believes that humans are destroying “The Planet”, In order to promote this view
they have set up organisations for their activists, such as Greenpeace, where
every member and official had to propagate the official doctrine, imposed from
above.

In the 1980s a group of rogue scientists, who supported this dogma,
suggested that the public and governments would accept it more readily if it
was a “settled” opinion of a sufficiently large group of scientists. They
invented a new pseudo-scientific model of the climate which ignored the
scientific understanding of the climate built up by generations of
meteorologists, which was supposedly related to Fourier’s explanation of how a
greenhouse worked. It claimed that climate is controlled by human–related
emissions of carbon dioxide and other minor “greenhouse gases.

They persuaded the World Meteorological Association and their own United
Nations Environment Programme to set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change to gather together scientific material to support this project in
preparation for the Rio :Earth Summit in 1991 which launched the deception,

At the time, employment of scientists had fallen, Generous salaries,
promotion and foreign travel was offered to those who would support this
programme, combined with a campaign of elimination of critics by influence on
Journal Editors, the Universities, Official Scientific Bodies and the
international media

The IPCC has now issued five major Reports. These have been amazingly
successful in persuading governments all over the world that they can prevent
what is alleged to control “global warming” by reducing emissions of carbon
dioxide and other minor greenhouse gases.

The IPCC ran into a problem that does not affect an organisation such as
Greenpeace, Scientists are usually trained to think for themselves, and some of
those who have been recruited to support the “climate change” programme find it
difficult not to insert their reservations into the opinions that are
proscribed for them.

The main mechanism for ensuring uniformity of thought is applied by the
presence in all of the IPCC Reports of a “Summary for Policymakers” at the
beginning. This is really a Summary BY Policymakers, because it is dictated,
line by line by the government representatives who control the IPCC to a group
of reliable “Drafting Authors” It is published before the main Report, to
emphasize the need for conformity. In addition they try to exert pressure in
the choice of “Lead Authors”, and in the treatment of comments made by the
“reviewers” who receive drafts of the Reports, .

Despite all this pressure, complete uniformity of thought has, so far,
never been achieved

The First IPCC Report “Climate Change´(1990) stated plainly

“The persons named below all contributed to the peer review of the IPCC
Working Group I Report. Whilst every attempt was made by the Lead Authors to
incorporate their comments, in some cases these formed a minority opinion which
could not be reconciled with the larger consensus. Therefore, there may be
persons below who still have points of disagreement with areas of the Report.”.

But it still stated, even in the “Summary
for Policymakers” of the 1990 Report and in its 1992 Supplement

“The size of this warming (which they claimed) is broadly consistent
with predictions of climate models but it is also of the same magnitude as
natural climate variability”

Climate observations, which appear only in the last chapter of the 1990
report, are not “broadly consistent with the predictions of climate models”
Also all subsequent Reports had to admit that they are actually incapable of
making “predictions” but only “projections” dependent on whether you believe
the assumptions of the models.

The Second IPCC Report “Climate Change 1995 : The Science of Climate
Change” had to confront a series of opinions in the Draft of the Final Report
which disagreed with the greenhouse theory. It included the following
statements

"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence
that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases
in greenhouse gases."

"Finally we come to the most difficult question of all: 'When will
the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change
occur?' In the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed
in this Chapter, it is not surprising that the best answer to this question is
'We do not know’. Few if any would be willing to argue that unambiguous
attribution of this change to anthropogenic effects has already occurred, or
was likely to happen in the next several years."

One of their scientists (Ben Santer) was given the job of eliminating
all the offending passages, or changing them to give a more favoured opinion.

But after all that they ended up with this equivocal conclusion:

“The balance of the evidence suggests a discernible human influence on
the climate”

This is something everybody can agree on. Humans spend all of their
efforts in trying to influence the climate. The statement says nothing about
greenhouse gases or of carbon dioxide. It supports the offending passages that
were deleted.

The Third Report “Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis” was
the one for which I did a detailed analysis called “The Greenhouse
Delusion”. .

The following statement appeared in Chapter 1

“The fact that the global mean temperature has increased since the late
19th century and that other trends have been observed does not necessarily
mean that an anthropogenic effect on the climate has been identified. Climate
has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed change may be natural”.

In the Policymakers Summary we get another equivocal opinion

“in the light of the new evidence and taking into account the remaining
uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to
have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”.

Here they change tack. Once again they do not claim that there is
evidence that this is so, merely that it is the opinion of their paid “experts:
They seem to think that if they assign to the opinion “likely” as meaning
greater than 60% probability that this makes it any other than merely an
opinion.

And so we come to IPCC Science Report No 4 “Climate Change 2007: The
Physical Science Basis”

Now we get a slight
amendment to the previous equivocal statement

“Most of the observed increase in globally averaged
temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed
increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”

Again it is not evidence but opinions of their paid experts who
are now 95% certain they are right, but it only applies to :most” of the
evidence and it only applies to their highly inaccurate temperature series, but
not to the more accurate satellite and radiosonde series which began in 1978
and 1958 respectively

Despite all this they were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize together with
Al Gore

The Fifth IPCC WGI AR5 Report “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science
Basis” has now been made available from their recent meeting in
Stockholm.

They have now “Approved” the Summary for Policymakers once more by the
line by line dictation of supposedly “consensus” agreement by the 119 anonymous
Government representatives to he “Drafting Authors”

We get yet another set of equivocal opinions

“Human influence on the climate system is clear”

Is this an advance on “discernible” ?

“It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause
of the observed warming since the mid 20th century”

Again no mention of greenhouse gases and how much is “dominant?.

“Since the mid 20th Century”, is pretty short in geological or even in
human lifetime terms and it is again arranged so as to eliminate the more
reliable satellite and radiosonde measurements.

They ignore completely the “hiatus” that has taken place. Their
technique of “observing” this “unequivocal” and “unprecedented” warming has
failed to do so for the past 17 years

The Summary for Policymakers may have been approved, and it is issued
freely to the public, but it is obviously unfinished, has a large number of
necessary editing, and it carries the request “Do not Cite do not Quote, do not
Distribute”

For the first time they have failed to approve the Final version of the
Report. They merely “accept” it and issue a list of 134 “Corrections” which are
intended to make the main Report compatible with the “Summary for
Policymakers”.

So we have once more the same game they played on the Second Report,
except this time it is applied officially by all of them and not by one
individual. I have had a good look through all of them and have not found
evidence of drastic alteration. They seem merely to be trying to improve the
cover up of the so-called temperature “hiatus” which has made them feel even
more confident than before that it does not matter and will soon go away.

I have managed to make my way through much of the main Report and l have
a few preliminary comments

They have laboured hard to deal with the “hiatus” by such devices as
using “decadal” averages and different starting and ending dates but not very
successfully

They still avoid the mismatch between “emissions” which are only from
the land and “concentrations” which are mainly measured over the sea, and the
fact that there is no established relationship between them

They have deliberately confused “sea level” of the ocean, usually
calculated from models and “relative sea level” between sea and land which is
the only one that matters

It is now obvious that the uncertainties which they have attached to
estimates of the earth’s energy on their revised diagram are so much larger
than the claimed “projections” of the model calculations are meaningless

As a final conclusion, attempts of the IPCC to impose rigid discipline
on a large group of scientists to persuade them to claim that human
emissions of so-called greenhouse gases harm the climate, without being able to
supply convincing evidence, has been a failure.

Even their opinions on the supposed reliability of their “projections”
always leave an increasingly small escape route for the day when their approach
is proved wrong.